CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2006

Lawrence Teachers Ass'n v. Lawrence Public Schools

This case concerns an appeal by the Lawrence Teachers Association (petitioner) challenging the denial of their petition to confirm an arbitration award. The arbitration award mandated Lawrence Public Schools (respondent) to designate members of the petitioner’s bargaining unit to provide special education services outside the school district's geographical boundaries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, concluding the award was unenforceable. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the arbitration award violated public policy as it contravened Education Law former § 3602-c (2). This statute required the school district to contract with the school district where the nonpublic school attended by the pupil was located for such services. The court emphasized that an arbitrator's award cannot stand if it is contrary to well-defined statutory law and public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyEducation LawSpecial Education ServicesCollective BargainingStipulationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewSchool District ObligationsLabor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services v. Andrew B.

This case involves the Department of Social Services seeking to establish the paternity of Shari C., born in January 1970, against a respondent. The petitioner's assignor (the mother) claims a relationship with the respondent through summer 1969, during which she became pregnant, confirmed by Doctor Davis. The court found the mother's testimony truthful regarding their sexual relations. However, the court considered broader public policy and the "best interests" of the child, who has been raised for 10 years without the respondent's presence or support. Despite the State's interest in recouping public assistance expenditures, the court decided that imposing an unknown, unwilling father on a 10-year-old child goes against her best interests and a stronger public policy to free a child from an undesirable parent. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

PaternityFiliationChild SupportPublic AssistanceBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsFamily Court ActDepartment of Social ServicesRecoupment of AidNon-Marital Child
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2015

People v. Doe

Defendant, charged with assault and harassment after biting a security officer at an HIV/AIDS Services Administration (HASA) location, filed a motion to seal court papers and to prevent the complainant from referencing defendant's alleged HIV status, citing Public Health Law § 2780 et seq. The defendant argued that the security officer, as an agent of HASA, was bound by confidentiality provisions regarding HIV-related information. The court determined that Article 27-F of the Public Health Law applies only to persons who provide health or social services, a category that did not include the complainant security officer. Consequently, the defendant's motion to preclude the HIV-related testimony was denied. However, the court granted the application to seal the underlying motion papers, citing the sensitive nature of the proceedings and the strong public policy favoring confidentiality.

HIV confidentialityPublic Health Law 27-FAssault third degreeHarassment second degreeConfidentiality of HIV related informationSealing motion papersTestimony preclusionSocial services lawAgency theoryCriminal procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wayne County Department of Social Services v. Schultz

William Schultz, Jr., a minor, left his father's home due to unbearable living conditions with his stepfamily. Despite initially supporting himself, he eventually began receiving public assistance. The Department of Social Services then sought reimbursement from his father, who claimed William was emancipated or that he lacked the financial ability to contribute. The court ruled that while William was personally emancipated from his father, this did not relieve the father of his legal obligation to support his son when public funds were involved. Consequently, the court ordered the father to pay $25 per week towards William's support.

EmancipationChild SupportParental ObligationPublic AssistanceMinorFamily LawReimbursementFinancial Responsibility
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Knudsen v. Nassau County Department of Social Services

Thomas and Carol Knudsen initiated an Article 78 proceeding against the Nassau County Department of Social Services, challenging three determinations. First, the denial of emergency assistance for clothing destroyed by pinworms was challenged, with the court ruling that the county's reliance on a State regulation limiting emergency assistance was invalid. The defense was struck, and the request was remanded for re-evaluation. Second, the reduction of their Aid to Dependent Children grant in December 1973, without proper notice and opportunity for a hearing, was annulled. Third, the denial of assistance to Mr. Knudsen in January 1974, due to the department's failure to transfer his name for supplemental security income, was also addressed. The court granted judgment in favor of the petitioners, directing relief consistent with its rulings and ordering the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services to appear and explain the department's persistent policy regarding emergency assistance limitations.

Emergency AssistanceSocial Services LawPublic AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenWelfare BenefitsDue ProcessFair HearingAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationNassau County DSS
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. McDonald

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06579 [243 AD3d 1194]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Board of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist. v. Public Empl. Relations Bd. of the State of N.Y.

This case addresses a challenge by the Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District (petitioner) to a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found the district engaged in an improper employer practice by unilaterally transferring the work of counseling non-mandated students from its bargaining unit employees (school social workers and psychologists) to non-unit county social workers. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed PERB's determination, concluding there was substantial evidence that the work was exclusively performed by unit employees and the reassigned tasks were substantially similar. The court dismissed the district's petition and granted PERB's counterclaim for enforcement of its remedial order. This affirms PERB's finding that the district violated the Taylor Law by not negotiating the transfer of bargaining unit work.

Public EmploymentImproper Employer PracticeCollective BargainingBargaining Unit WorkPublic Employment Relations BoardTaylor LawCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSchool Social Workers
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State of New York & Civil Service Employees Ass'n

Petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed an arbitration award, denying petitioner's application to vacate it. The arbitration involved David H. Jackson, a Youth Division Aide, who was disciplined for punching a juvenile and pushing a coworker, with a proposed penalty of termination. The arbitrator found Jackson guilty but imposed an eight-month suspension, anger management therapy, and a three-month probationary period instead of termination. Petitioner argued the reinstatement violated public policy concerning child protection, citing Executive Law § 501 (12) and Social Services Law § 412-a. The court affirmed, ruling that the public policy exception to arbitration awards is narrow and the cited laws did not absolutely prohibit the arbitrator's devised remedy or mandate termination, nor did the award explicitly violate public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionMisconductEmployee DisciplineYouth Division AideChild ProtectionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewVacatur of AwardAffirmation of Judgment
References
7
Case No. 32 NY3d 991
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2018

Matter of Spence v. New York State Dept. of Agric. & Mkts.

Petitioners, including Wayne Spence (President of the New York State Public Employees Federation) and two state dairy product specialists, challenged a policy by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. The policy prohibited employees responsible for inspecting regulated entities from campaigning for or holding elected office, citing conflict of interest. Petitioner Gregory Kulzer's request to serve as a county legislator was denied after he had previously been approved and elected, leading to a formal policy revision. Petitioners initiated a hybrid declaratory judgment action/CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the policy violated First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division rejected their claims, applying the Pickering standard. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, finding the policy not unconstitutional. However, dissenting Judges Rivera and Wilson argued that the lower courts erred by not applying the heightened 'exacting scrutiny' standard established in United States v Treasury Employees and reaffirmed in Janus v State, County, and Municipal Employees, which applies to widespread limitations on public employee speech. They would have reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration under this stricter standard.

First AmendmentPublic Employee SpeechConflict of InterestHatch ActExacting ScrutinyPickering StandardJudiciary LawFreedom of SpeechGovernment PolicyElected Office
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 3,661 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational